Talk:Wedding Dress Saga
not a real saga these episodes are filler apart of the Piccolo Jr. Saga. there's a source for peaceful world saga, but there's no source for this made up saga. it's been plenty of times sagas in the games have been named something different. why do people always have to put bullcrap like this on this wiki and confuse the readers Nikon23 21:07, December 10, 2016 (UTC) Agreed. 05:33, December 22, 2016 (UTC) If theres no source for it than tell an admin. There the only ones who can delete pages. -- 40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottomSupremegogeta40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottom 06:45, December 22, 2016 (UTC) Lol Chichi saga XD. I didn't think it would actually be made into an article 0551E80Y (talk) 08:07, December 22, 2016 (UTC) And according to the user who created this article, it has a source. 0551E80Y (talk) 08:10, December 22, 2016 (UTC) Eh, i still don't think it should be regonized as its own saga. Just like the raditz saga page i found. There not really sagas, for one there way to short to be sagas. Lol there like 4 episodes long. -- 40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottomSupremegogeta40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottom 09:57, December 22, 2016 (UTC) There's a source. Raditz Saga and this saga have sources. Thus, we keep them.--Pluto2 (talk) 18:19, December 22, 2016 (UTC) I completely disagree with it. They should be called arcs if anything. There way to short to be recgonized as there own sagas. -- 40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottomSupremegogeta40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottom 20:18, December 22, 2016 (UTC) That's not the point. The episode count is irrelevant. The titles of the sagas are what they are. If Funimation, the Daizenshuu, or Toei give a saga a name, we use those names, with dub names when there are ones. Not what fans say. Pluto2 (talk) 20:57, December 23, 2016 (UTC) Well sometimes the fans make more since than the actual creators/oweners of the show. There is no such thing as a 4 episode saga. A "saga" cant be 4 episodes. Thats not a saga, thats to short. A saga would be something like the saiyan saga. With the raditz and vegeta parts being included into it. They are not there own sagas. If they are, than what would the saiyan saga be if raditz and vegeta have their own sagas? There wouldnt be one. -- 40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottomSupremegogeta40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottom 02:45, December 24, 2016 (UTC) Again, a fan typing in a fashion that would make Tara Gilesbie proud's opinion does not matter more than the creators. End of discussion. --Pluto2 (talk) 10:16, December 24, 2016 (UTC) Alright so with that logic your using someones gotta fix the saiyan saga page. If raditz and vegeta are known as there own sagas we cant have saiyan saga page. We gotta rename something. Or change the deffiention of what the word saga means. -- 40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottomSupremegogeta40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottom 10:22, December 24, 2016 (UTC) Well, well. It appeares there is no saiyan saga page. I suppose you win. However to me and to many others the raditz and vegeta parts are called arcs. While the entire "thing" would be called a saiyan saga. Ex: it takes arcs to build a saga. Thus Raditz arc + vegeta arc = saiyan saga. Sorry for the confusion this way just makes more since to me. -- 40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottomSupremegogeta40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottom 10:37, December 24, 2016 (UTC) Okay, can we just end this discussion? It amounts to people using mangled English to argue in favor of a position that we are never taking - one where the fans determine the sagas. You're saying the Raditz Saga isn't a saga, and yet the Captain Ginyu Saga and Super 17 Saga are? Pluto2 (talk) 10:44, December 24, 2016 (UTC) All i did was say how i liked to look at it. Your the one contiuning the disscussion. The raditz arc isnt a saga to me yes. And niether is captain ginyus. Namek arc, Ginyu force arc, destroyed namek arc = Frieza Saga. We may not ever use it but it is the right way to look at it. Super 17s is a saga though. Because there is no extra stuff that happens. Its all based on Super 17 and its to short to branch out like the others i did for you. You are just trying to throw words into peoples mouths. And i dont appreciate that at all good sir. And by "mangeld english" are you taking a shot at me? Or are you consurning everybody? Again your the one carrying this out. All i did was give my view on looking at it and i apolgized for confusing you. And that was where i ended it. -- 40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottomSupremegogeta40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottom 12:21, December 24, 2016 (UTC) Anyways, i may not be able to change those "sagas" but i can this one. It says on the page its listed under Piccolo jrs episodes. Where does it say its, its own saga on the dvd set? If it does whys it listed on the page that its not? "Funimation Saga Sets Piccolo Jr. Saga, Part Two (138-153) FUNimation Remastered DVD Sets Dragon Ball Season Five (123-153)" Again, doesnt say anything about a wedding dress saga. The episodes are tied in with the piccolo jr saga. -- 40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottomSupremegogeta40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottom 12:41, December 24, 2016 (UTC) You're citing the wiki itself as a source. That is not allowed. Pluto2 (talk) 08:01, December 25, 2016 (UTC) What are you talking about? I quoted what it says on the page you made! That you keep trying to defend so badly! But you cant! Lol im telling you you long lost moon, the episodes you keep trying to mush togather to call a saga isnt listed as its own saga on the dvd box set. Its listed and numberd! As the Piccolo Jr saga.-- 40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottomSupremegogeta40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottom 08:19, December 25, 2016 (UTC) So what is the status of this dispute, is this article gonna be fused or not?0551E80Y (talk) 10:01, January 5, 2017 (UTC) As far as im concerned yeah it is. It says on the page that he made and said himself that its listed and numbered under the piccolo jr saga there is no wedding dress saga. When you buy the Dragon Ball dvd box set it says nothing about a wedding dress saga. It goes from pilaf to piccolo jr. Thats it. 40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottomSupremegogeta40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottom 13:45, January 5, 2017 (UTC) :I'm a she. --Pluto2 (talk) 03:36, January 7, 2017 (UTC) That explains why you want the page so badly. Lol im jk and forgive me. But still theres no proof to it. 40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottomSupremegogeta40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottom 19:59, January 7, 2017 (UTC) :From what I can find, the 30th Anniversary Timeline has this bullet pointed as a sub saga in the entire Piccolo arc (consisting of 22nd Tournament, King Piccolo, Piccolo Jr. and the Wedding Dress sagas) but it isn't given the name "Wedding Dress Saga". It seems to be important enough for them to note it as an anime only story arc just like how the Garlic Jr. Saga and the Other World Saga is pointed out there. So basically we have proof its officially acknowledged as its own saga but there is no official name for it as far as I can see. - SuperTiencha (talk) 05:58, January 6, 2017 (UTC) So one random internet page acknowledged it. I have no idea wgat the page even is because i cant read it. But assuming they are offical im still dissagreeing to its existince because like i said before its not listed as its own saga in the dragon ball box set. And i believe because there is only 1 internet page that we dont know even know nothing about its just some random internet page (probably more if you looked but it wouldnt matter) and we cant seem to find this "saga" in the dazienshu or listed on the dvds or anywhere for that matter. This page should be deleted. Its a waste of space. It has no proof. Its existince doesnt matter and it needs to. 40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottomSupremegogeta40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottom 10:39, January 6, 2017 (UTC) So how about taking that internet page to the kanzenshuu? I'm certain SaiyaJedi (Julian Grybowski) could translate it. 0551E80Y (talk) 10:53, January 6, 2017 (UTC) Because i have no idea what that is or how to use it or care to learn to. If you want to go ahead. English or not its still not real evidince. 40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottomSupremegogeta40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottom 13:18, January 6, 2017 (UTC) :Exactly. You don't care, yet want your opinion to overrule an official timeline that says this is a separate saga. It's not up to the fans to decide whether something is a saga or not. --Pluto2 (talk) 03:36, January 7, 2017 (UTC) Because you have no proof that it is a saga. "Its not up to the fans to decide wether something is a saga or not" your doing just that. You keep claming this saga is real but yet you have no proof. So far nobody else does either, now im going to let an admin know that this page needs to be done away with because im tiered of talking about it. I get that your proud of the page you made i really do. But it has no proof my friend. Its not listed on the dvds as its own saga and says that on the page itself. 40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottomSupremegogeta40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottom 14:47, January 7, 2017 (UTC) Sure it's events are referenced on the 30th Anniversary Timeline, but it's not listed as it's own timeline, it's listed as an anime only event of the Piccolo Arc. If for some reason we list every anime only event on the timeline as a saga, then we'll need the "Bulma falls for Vegeta Saga" and the "Goku and Piccolo learn to drive Saga" to be added.--Neffyarious (talk) 14:56, January 7, 2017 (UTC) Thank you again Neffyarious. 40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottomSupremegogeta40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottom 15:20, January 7, 2017 (UTC) :According to the original editor linked up top, it looks like this saga was named in a game. Is that correct? By the way, none of this arc + arc = saga nonsense please. Some franchises and media within a franchise prefer one set of terminology and others use another. Let's stick with "saga" rather than add another layer of unnecessary complexity. 02:13, January 8, 2017 (UTC) Its not nonsense it makes complete since. Had nothing to do with the reason to why this saga isnt real. And btw i do call the "sagas" sagas. If it is named in one video game Its not anywhere else. So what do we do about that? 40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottomSupremegogeta40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottom 02:27, January 8, 2017 (UTC) :So even if official material says it's a saga, your opinion matters more? That's false and you know it. This is an encyclopedia. --Pluto2 (talk) 04:36, January 8, 2017 (UTC) The video game being used as a source is Attack of the Saiyans right? Does the game refer to it as a "saga" or "arc" at all? From what I can see these events are only called "Chapter 5: Gyumao in Danger!? The Wedding Dress in Flames" in the game and are not referenced as being a unique saga.--Neffyarious (talk) 04:47, January 8, 2017 (UTC) So! With this new information by the notorious Neffyarious this page has no source at all No video game, no 30th anneverisy, no acknowledgement whatsoever. Nothing it has nothing. now lets get rid of it. 40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottomSupremegogeta40px|bottom40px|bottom40px|bottom 05:48, January 8, 2017 (UTC)